What actually happened in the summer of 2005 has now been mostly obscured under the lobbying and partisanship that has buffetted Paul Wolfowitz and his presidency of the World Bank in recent weeks. But yesterday's report by a panel of seven World Bank executives, the so-called "Ad Hoc Group", claimed to present a version of events that was based on "a strong and largely undisputed documentary record". Its conclusions were as follows:

He violated the code of conduct

The code of conduct for board officials at the World Bank requires members to "avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent". At the time of his appointment to the World Bank in May 2005, Mr Wolfowitz informed the board that he had a pre-existing relationship with Shaha Ali Riza, one of the bank's Middle East experts.

He suggested "recusing myself from any influence over personnel decisions involving Ms Riza" but was told that his proposal did not go far enough. By later ordering Xavier Coll, the bank's Vice President of Human Resources, to accept Ms Riza's demands for a transfer to the US State Department, two promotions and a pay rise, the panel found that Mr Wolfowitz "engaged in de facto conflict of interest".

He broke the staff rules

Ms Riza's new contract, whose contents was directed by Mr Wolfowitz and not vetted by World Bank lawyers, broke staff rule 6.01 with its pay increases and guarantees of promotion.

He automatically ordered her promotion to staff level H, a move which Ms Riza claimed that she had been denied because she was Muslim and a woman, and raised her pay from $132,660 to $180,000. Under the rules, Ms Riza was eligible for a pay increase

It is my view that he did almost everything right. According to other sources, he did not have anything to do with his girlfriend’s transfer or pay raise. The World Bank had concluded that she was due a pay raise before she was transferred. The only thing I can think that he did wrong was get involved with a Muslim in the first place.

I am not understanding this “controversy”. He eliminated a “conflict of interest” by moving Ms Riza away from the World Bank. Isn’t this a good thing? So he gave her a pay raise and a promotion. Happens all the time in the business world. It’s called NEGOTIATION (in my best Joe Biden impression), one of the libs’ favorite words.

6
posted on 05/15/2007 6:13:05 AM PDT
by Eagle of Liberty
(The United States of America is the only country strong enough to go it alone.)

Believe it or not, I agree with you on your very last point. This portrayal of her, pieced together from World Bank staffers on their dissident site, really shows that she was an incompetent but manipulative and controlling sort of Arab woman, and does not make me think highly of her at all. Why Paul got involved with this sort of person is pretty sad.

I agree with you that it should be run by an American. But I think that there is no way it won’t be. There are two options to ensure it - one is that the US can yank its money if there is no american running it all - and that would be practically all of it. Two, it can demand that the IMF be run by an american and the europeans can see how they like that - there is a perfect quid pro quo going on with this europe stuff.

But I think wolfowitz is the wrong man for the job, I think he should be back in academia, writing papers, not doing executive work which he has no aptitude for. One thing I would like to point out about wolf’s management style is that the imf is run by a flamingly rightwing european, rodrigo rato of spain, who was aznar’s righthand man. He’s had no trouble from the staff because he does know how to manage and avoid even the appearance of corruption. I think wolf has made some mistakes as described by this article, and ought to exit to something better, imho. Bush should appoint him to the UN and the euros can then see how they like that.

IF anyone bothered to read Wolfowitz’s version of events, it would make things a LOT clearer.

The World Bank insiders never wanted him. Wolfowitz tried to be upfront on everything to begin with. Wolfowitz make the mistake of doing what the Ethics Panel told him to do at the beginning of this fiasco.

This is a pure political hatchet job.

18
posted on 05/15/2007 6:29:16 AM PDT
by Bryan24
(When in doubt, move to the right..........)

Why would wolfowitz’s version of events be more credible? He’s the one who’s on the hot seat, he should be listened to as any guy in the dock should be, but he obviously has a strong interest in keeping his job and therefore might have a reason to slant the facts to ensure that he keeps it. That he got a plum job in the bush administration doesn’t make him a paragon of virtue. He had a lot of problems in the pentagon always thinking he was right and dismissing the concerns of generals. I think he’s misplaced in his current job.

This is more smog. Wolfowitz followed the directions of the Ethics committee. Now the same committee is trying to hang him for following their own directions.

Exactly. The World Bank is more corrput than the UN, if that is possible. The criminals saw there was a new sheriff in town, and they wanted to get rid of him. They created a series of legal hoops to jump through that would make Rube Goldberg burst with pride. Then, they declared him guilty.

I took the issue to the Ethics Committee and after extensive discussions with the Chairman, the Committees advice was to promote and relocate Ms. Shaha Riza.

I made a good faith effort to implement my understanding of that advice, and it was done in order to take responsibility for settling an issue that I believed had potential to harm the institution. In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations. I made a mistake, for which I am sorry.

One thing that rings false about that 'apology' - and why did he make it at all if he did nothing wrong - is that he claimed Riza would sue the bank. She worked taxfree for an international institution and the one thing she couldn't do was sue it. The WB has tribunals and they don't go by american tort lawyer standards, so she could have gone to the tribunal, but the WB certainly wouldn't have been hurt. The thing is, this piece describes a lot about why she wouldn't want to - she was a powermonger and up to no good at the bank, hence, her shrieking behavior at getting seconded to liz cheney at state.

You don’t have to read very far on that site to see that it’s all sour grapes from leftist Euro-trash morons. Just read a few of the other items linked on the right. If you take that site seriously then you might be happier at the DUmpster than on FR.

p.s. What should happen at the World Bank is a complete housecleaning: the entire Ethics Committee should be dismissed, since THEY had this matter in their hands from the beginning, and THEY bungled it. All of the UN/Eurotrash leftists should be dismissed. IF there has to be a World Bank for development aid, it should be thoroughly purged of the all the corrupt and depraved leftists who dominate. Anyone who’s picking on Wolfowitz for a problem that he identified to the board BEFORE he ever signed a contract with them is not operating in good faith or honesty.

You really don’t think she was doing all that conniving they say she was? From my own experience, this stuff sounds pretty credible. No, she could not sue in an international court, the only recourse she had was the WB’s own tribunals.

"Why is your screenname the very French enchante if you cannot stand Europeans?"

Actually, there are many European people and cultural experiences that I adore, just not the hateful cowardly Eurotrash socialist types. For any Europeans who are willing to support the defense of civilization and humanity against the barbaric hordes of Islamo-fascists, I am always on their side!! (there just aren't enough of them, though I hope the election of Sarkozy heralds something better)

fwiw, I chose my screen name before 9/11 and well before the Chirac/Villepin follies over Iraq, when I was more willing to hope that the French were still part of civilization. I'm sure I would have chosen something else in recent years, but with the election of Sarkozy I have new hopes for France as a part of rational civilization.

Second, he specifically attempted to deal with this issue before accepting the position.

Third, after he took the position, the ethics board changed position and demanded that she be separated from the World Bank because of the relationship that pre-existed his employment, so she was to be fired because they hired him.

Forth, subordinates negotiated a raise and transfer deal so that she would not be damaged by being forced to leave.

Fifth, as the Chief Executive, the salary committee demanded that he approve the settlement.

Then his enemies immediately started pumping this charge of misconduct, because they don't want him there.

The whole deal is a framed up crock of crap. At some point there is no way to do something right.

In the mean time, the rest of the Board of the World Bank are happily lining their own pockets.

Nothing you posted changes the simply fact that nothing good comes from banging an employee. It doesn’t matter how the relationship came about.

If nothing else, your post demonstrates they both should have known better to begin with, given their established relationship.

This is ‘bloodsport’ and they left themselves wide open to this unfair attack by their own actions. Given the hysterical rants about anyone associated with the Bush Administration, not to mention the corruption of the World Bank and its politics, this was the end result of poor choices by both of them.

Just my opinion. I have no axe to grind with Wolfowitz or his girlfried. But the results are predictable, under the unique circumstances found at the WB.

35
posted on 05/15/2007 7:36:26 AM PDT
by Badeye
(You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')

Though I want to agree with you, I think you are off point. Primarily because, the Ethics committee essentially decided that She could not stay and all parties accepted this. Because Wolfowitz addressed this as part of his initial hiring in the context of his employment agreement and this situation was accepted by the World Bank as a condition of his employment. There is nothing supporting your assertion.

This isn't about "Banging an Employee" it is about a cynical series of moves by folks who wanted to discredit Wolfowitz. This is all about the terms for her termination. Which are governed by law as well, she cannot suffer just because of the relationship either or this can be construed as Harassment just the same.

The Lefties set a bear trap and he walked into it thinking he had secured his hind quarters and with an eye on cleaning up this corrupt institution. They probably approached him to say, now we have you and he said nothing doing. So the crap hit the fan.

Offer made under terms of Employment agreement with recognition of relationship

Ethics Committee decides that the relationship is unworkable under any circumstances and demands existing employee be terminated for pre-existing relationship, creating a potential cause of unfair employment practices by the lady being terminated.

A committee assigned to negotiate this termination recommends giving her raises which she was due before hiring the chief executive and then assisting her in finding a position outside of the company.

There is no scandal here, and though there was a period where she was working at the same place, the issue is about how her termination was handled.

These folks essentially accept your position and acted to resolve the situation, but now that all of the players played by the rules, folks who want to destroy the new CEO are misrepresenting the facts so as to create a perception of unethical behavior.

So. This woman wasn't his employee. And unlike you, he doesn't and never did own the company. Its hard to cast a comparable situation for you. It would go something like. You decide to hire a manager because you are retiring but you don't want to sell your shares.

He says, my girlfriend is one of your current sales managers under your VP of Sales.. You still want to hire him because he is the best for the job and you do, then you decide, it just won't do to have them both working there.

Why you decide this is your own problem but you decide this and begin the process of terminating her. Now, terminating her under these circumstances is spectacularly unfair. It would have been also unfair if you had decided to terminate her before you made him an offer just the same. So you give her a raise and then help her find a comparable situation at a friends company. Situation handled.

How would you do this differently? Not hire the guy? Perhaps, that was the Decision for the World Bank Board, not his. The important difference between him and you having a relationship with an employee is that you are coming from a perspective of his having a choice other than to not accept the job. Is this your point? If immediately on accepting the position he had fired her outright and terminated the relationship, nothing about this situation would change, except she would have several causes of action against the World Bank.

Does this mean that if any two unmarried employees of yours start dating you fire one or both of them? It may be a good plan but I wonder how that would hold up in court. I don't even know if the policy is legal.

Any supervisor who starts a relationship with any subordinate is cause for grave concern and you are on firm ground taking action in this case, but what about to unrelated managers having a relationship. Now you have a promotion decision and this would cause you to place one of these managers in a supervising position over the other. Is it your position you should deny the promotion based this existing relationship? Or is it your position that you have to fire the manager who you are promoting the other over? What if you really need this person in that position because they are the best you can find? You don't want to have the situation where one is supervising the other, so you approach the lower manager with a severance package. Where is the scandal?

You raise some interesting views on this, and obviously you have given it quite a bit of thought. I’m impressed.

As such, I won’t dispute any of your assertions. I’ll just note one more time the following;

Banging an employee always ends badly.

As it has in this case, as it has in every case where I’ve heard of it happening.

I’m not a ‘Wolfowitz basher’. I honestly don’t care about the World Bank, outside of the fact its sucking taxpayer dollars away from this nation, and distributing to despots for no material or political gain.

You want to make an exception for Wolfowitz’s mistake(s) be my guest. Doesn’t change whats about to happen, doesn’t change the fact having sex with a co worker, no matter how you try to rationalize it, is just plain dumb, on multiple levels.

Doesn’t work at McDonalds, doesn’t work at the World Bank, didn’t work in the Clinton Whitehouse.

43
posted on 05/15/2007 10:40:49 AM PDT
by Badeye
(You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')

Gee, the Board of thoroughly corrupt World Bank is accusing its accuser of "corruption"... Golly, who woulda thunk it!

He suggested "recusing myself from any influence over personnel decisions involving Ms Riza" but was told that his proposal did not go far enough.

The salary increase was due to transfer from her "position of conflict of interest" with Wolfowitz at the WB to DoS, with corresponding increase in salary which is not even exhorbitatnt relative to DoS or WB personnel. And there are at least to documents that show that decision was approved by WB Board members. Yet it took WB board and special "panel" 2 years to figure out that after recusing himself and declaring to the board existence of and removing "conflict of interest" which they asked him to do, he somehow was guilty of "conflict of interest".

The only thing Wolfowitz was "guilty" of is uncovering past and preventing further corruption at WB (not unlike UN's Oil For Food corruption that we hear so little about these days), so they are trying to cook up a distraction from real issues and project their own corruption on him.

Kitten, you are consistently wrong on this, and simply keep ignoring the real issues here - Europeans trying to stage a "coup" at WB and divert attention from their own, to say it mildly, "indiscretions" . Try reading some threads about WB / Wolfowitz matter, that are not posted by you and not from liberal or European press who, as is their habit, simply ignore the "inconvenient truth" and facts - just as a Board panel did - it truly may lift the fog. But if you are prejudiced against Wolfowitz from any other issue, I guess, you'd like to believe what they print to justify your own preconceived notions about Wolfowitz.

44
posted on 05/15/2007 10:59:23 AM PDT
by CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)

You raise some interesting views on this, and obviously you have given it quite a bit of thought.

Actually, it's not his "view", it's the facts he described, which are kept being ignored by the "get Wolfowitz!" crowd.

Im impressed. As such, I wont dispute any of your assertions. --- and yet you do exactly that, right in the next sentence --- Ill just note one more time the following; Banging an employee always ends badly.

At no time she was his employee; he was, as you eloquently put it, "banging" her before joining WB, and specifically took steps to eliminate "conflict of interest" by notifying the Board, and trying to recuse himself from all matters involving her reassignment. The condition for his joining WB was her transfer to equivalent or better position somewhere else. They demanded that he put his signature on transfer agreement that they negotiated with her, specifically to avoid "conflict of interest" --- Mr Wolfowitz informed the board that he had a pre-existing relationship with Shaha Ali Riza, one of the bank's Middle East experts.

If Ms Riza's contract was "not vetted by World Bank lawyers" , it's the fault (or deliberate dereliction of duties) of the Board and Ethics Committee of WB, which in October 2005, four months after Wolfowitz joined WB, concluded that "conflict of interest" had been resolved. And in February 2006, in response to pseudonymous e-mail messages (no doubt from the disgruntled WB employees who didn't like the corruption exposed and gravy train stopping), WB Ethics Committee said "allegations did not appear appropriate for further consideration by the committee".

Here's more about Riza :According to a profile of Wolfowitz published in the London Sunday Times of March 20, 2005, Riza "shares Wolfowitzs passion for spreading democracy in the Arab world" and "is said to have reinforced his determination to remove Saddam Husseins oppressive regime."

45
posted on 05/15/2007 1:02:34 PM PDT
by CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)

You must not get around much. I've known several instances where it led to much marital bliss. And others where the love birds simply walked away from their previous startched-shorts employers and started a very successful businesses of their own.

I was not saying there was an exception for Wolfowitz and I honestly think initially his ethics committee was doing a decent job except as they are composed of political hacks that where possibly rubbing their hands as they read him chapter and verse.

I am saying, that the way it was handled seems proper to me and that all things considered what happened was a proper outcome. My point is that this is an entirely manufactured scandal for the purpose of hurting Wolfowitz and the administration and protecting corruption at the World Bank.

I frankly believe that the World Bank is a hopelessly corrupt enterprise if Wolfowitz can't fix it. If he gets put out the door, the World Bank should be completely defunded and ejected from the United States. If the US wants to have an agency like this, we should fund it and manage it ourselves ALA the Federal Reserve.

“I frankly believe that the World Bank is a hopelessly corrupt enterprise if Wolfowitz can’t fix it. If he gets put out the door, the World Bank should be completely defunded and ejected from the United States. If the US wants to have an agency like this, we should fund it and manage it ourselves ALA the Federal Reserve.”

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.